Quote:
Originally Posted by Llarry
The newer KC-46A is coming, but the majority of tankers are still the old KC-135R like this one.  |
Ah, the KC-46-- which is a lemon, even if it's brand new.
It's got half the capability of the KC-10 that it's now replacing at only double or triple the cost-- and it was *suppossed* to replace the venerable KC-135.
Which makes you wonder exactly how the much newer KC-10 got the ax instead of the much older KC-135's?
It holds the dubious distinction of the most critical (Red Flag) errors ever in an airframe when delivered. They've found LADDERS in the fuel tanks (and lots of fun other stuff) on delivery. Great quality control there, Boeing.
It really can't really pass gas or carry cargo or passengers very well, which basically makes it an airframe that literally can't do the job it was designed to do.
In fact, it's **SO** bad that the Commander in Chief of the Air Mobility Command tried to kill the program, which is a HUGE thing. That should have raised more than a few eyebrows.
There's a long and lurid history of how the KC-46 came into being- it only took Boeing three tries to stack the deck in their favor against better, more capable aircraft. Boeing lost a fly-off against Airbus's much more capable A330 tanker in the mid-2000's, threw a temper tantrum, convinced congress to have a "do-over" with a new, rigged contract requirement that Airbus couldn't make (despite having a far superior product), and finally got the contract.
People went to jail and lost their jobs, but Boeing got the contract.
Basically, Boeing put up a 767 variant instead of a 777 variant because the 777 was selling like hotcakes commercially (there wasn't even a freighter model yet as they were selling at full capacity) and they didn't want to waste production slots on the AF. So they shoved the no-longer being built 767 down the AF's throat to keep the production line open-- because nobody in the civil sector wanted that airplane anymore. Basically, Boeing sold an obsolete, no-longer-in-production airframe with far less capability than the airplane it was going to replace.
And the synthetic vision system (where the Boomer sits sideways and watches a video screen instead of being in a pod aft below the tail and using his eyes like all other tankers)? Doesn't really work-- HUGE flaring image issues (i.e. the receiver disappears) and the Boomers have trouble getting used to sitting sideways and trying to refuel via video game. What could possibly go wrong there?
And its now magically replacing the KC-10 instead of the KC-135 (which it was sold to the AF to replace). The KC-10 has a fuel capacity of 356,000 pounds of fuel: The KC-46 only carries 212,000 pounds, which is roughly equivalent to the the KC-135's 200,000 pounds. So, you are getting basically half of the refueling capability of the jet your'e replacing with your new toy-- which means more jets, crews, parts, maintainers, etc. Basically, far more cost for much less capability. Way to go, Congress!!
Yeah, not a fan, and anybody paying attention should be freakin' outraged!
Here's an article worth reading- especially if you read between the lines:
https://www.key.aero/article/story-b...asus-programme
R.